Cross-posted at my blog.
As a working mom of an almost-2-year-old, I feel terrifically relieved when I read headlines like this: "Working mothers 'don't harm their children's development', major study reveals." All along I've been so worried that I was single-handedly harming her development. Because, of course, if anything goes wrong with her, it must be my fault. In fact, I must have directly and selfishly caused it. You'll notice that the headline isn't phrased like this: "Having two parents who work full time outside the home does not harm a child's development." And it's especially never, ever this: "Working fathers 'don't harm their children's development,' major study reveals." Cause if you printed something like that everyone would be like "well, duh."
This study obviously aims to answer the question "Do working mothers harm their children's development?" And that tells you a lot about the assumptions and beliefs of the people who asked the question, the culture that the question came out of, and the people who are framing the results of the study. In Philosophy, we tend to think there's a lot of significance in the way people phrase things and in the questions they ask. You can tell a lot about a person's worldview by listening to the questions they think are worth pursuing. This is one of the most fundamental ways in which science is influenced by the culture in which it's embedded. Why would anybody even think to do a study asking whether working moms damage their children? Because the attitudes and values of the larger culture saturate whatever kinds of research occur within that culture. It's inevitable.
Another issue here is the complete denial of larger social forces at play in situations like this. If it's the case that we now live in a world with a very different economy such that the breadwinner and stay at home mom model is no longer feasible (let alone desirable) for most people, then why is the mother to blame for potential issues with the kids? Did she bring about these changes in our economy? Obviously not, but then why is the responsibility for the well-being of her kids solely hers? It's puzzling.
Similarly, an article about artificial sweeteners contains this gem:
But in the late 1960s, studies began linking cyclamate to cancer. One noted that chicken embryos injected with the chemical developed extreme deformities, leading scientists to wonder if unborn humans could be similarly damaged by their cola-drinking mothers.
Check out that phrasing. First, note that it's not the cola or the chemical used to sweeten it that damages the babies. It's their mothers. Second, pregnant women who have been told that the artificial sweetener is perfectly safe, who have had diet drinks with this sweetener in it relentlessly marketed to them, who probably couldn't get their hands on the research regarding the risks associated with that sweetener if they tried, and who face intense social pressure to avoid gaining much weight while pregnant, are singled out as the sole cause of the potential damage. The industries that develop the products and ruthlessly push them into the market before adequate testing can take place carry no culpability here. The regulatory agencies that are in the industry's pocket and thus fail to do their job carry no culpability here. And the giant marketing machine that produces the powerful and ubiquitous image of artificially sweetened drinks as safe and desirable has no culpability here. Nope, it's just these horrible women who knowingly and intentionally guzzle unhealthy drinks while pregnant who are to blame. Right. Got it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: It's funny you should ask.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16759
This post is dead on. You rarely see articles saying "Mother Keeps Baby Healthy in Routine Gestation" or anything along those lines. And if they do want to say something positive about fetus development, it is always "what mothers should do" or "a new product to help your baby." They put the product first if it seems to help, as if this new item will finally solve the problem of mothers intentionally harming their kids or just not caring. Putting the product in the role of hero seems like the mirror image of blaming mothers if a product is found to be damaging.
ex. "Fish Oil and Fetal Development - Help Your Baby Develop Well By Taking Fish oil During Pregnancy." I just did a Google search for "helping a baby develop" and this was the second hit.
It may seem like a minor point, especially since this fish oil article is for moms seeking ways to help their babies develop. Also since this article is not making it seem like all mothers want to injure their kids, it is more bearable. But even this title could have been "Moms Taking Fish Oil During Pregnancy Help Child" or something along those lines. It could have given credit to moms who sought ways to improve their children instead of giving the product all the attention. Heck even give the doctors some credit if the reason the moms took the product was at their advice.
To be fair this article seems like it was written just to sell the product, but that doesn't change its overall negative attitude towards women. I know it is a big shock to everyone but the opening line basically says you are screwing up your child's life by not taking the product.
So to recap: when a child is in some way hindered through negligence of a manufacturer's lack of testing their products, it is the mothers fault. And when a product might possibly help a child, then it is a gift from the unknown and if you don't use it you are hurting your kid. Basically everything is the fault of women, and men are there to save the day. What a great message for our society.
Apologies for the interchanging of baby, fetus, child, and kid. I mean whatever makes the most sense.
Yes. Phrasing. Words matter.
I had this exchange about an hour ago:
You are the one who refuses to acknowledge that things and people are different sorts of nouns. You yourself are right now trying to convince me that any noun can stand in for any other noun, and that as long as it's nouns-all-round there is no difference in meaning. I'm telling you that's wrong.
..…...Well, ok but if you really want to get technical sex is a verb so there.
What? Sex is a verb if it's used like: “I can't tell if these baby chicks are male or female, I had better sex them.”
..…...What difference does it really make? Why are you making such a huge deal about it?
Look, if I said to you that 20 is the same thing as 30 because they both have 2 digits, they both end in zero, and both end in a “ty” you would tell me I'm wrong. If I then continued to insist that they are similar enough that they are interchangable in most situations, you'd tell me I'm wrong. If I told you to lighten up, that it's just my personal opinion that 20 = 30, and told you to stop rolling your eyes just because you think it's “wrong” when I use 20 for 30 and 30 for 20, you'd tell me I'm wrong.
I mean c'mon, would you be able to keep quiet if you saw such a twisted understanding and application of math? ... Now imagine I'm telling you that you are just being “politically correct” because you insist on numbers meaning what they are supposed to mean.
Amen to this! :)
I was thinking about this topic last night after I saw a t-shirt saying "All mothers work".
I work fulltime and I've never really even considerefd whether it is developmentally damaging to my son. It's a moot point because if I didn't work I wouldn't be able to meet his basic needs.
I don't know why we (people in general) can't move past this? Today people just do the best they can to make a comfortable living for themselves. If that means the mother works and dad stays home, both work, both stay home - who cares? Seriously, it's not like some study is going to change my living situation!
That sort of study is as relevant (from a practical point of view) as one which tried to see what developmental damage was being done without both parents being home to look after the child. That scenario is pretty impossible, just like it is for many mothers to be at home full time.
Love this post. Absolutely right on!
Combatting harmful stereotypes is often a motivation for studies. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if the researchers were annoyed with all of the handwringing over working moms and they then decided to do a study that would help combat that stereotype.
You see that alot in psychology. For example, studies looking at the effect of abortion on well-being, or same-sex relationships on child outcomes, often are motivated by the belief that the results will challenge widely held but erroneous lay opinions that these things are harmful. I agree with you that it is informative to look at what topics people choose to study - it says alot about what is considered controversial and important in our society.
How it gets written up in the popular press is much less in our control. When a journalist interviews us about our research, you can tell they often have their own spin they want to put on it.
Thanks for posting this!
I think you're absolutely right about how language is phrased/distorted to give mothers power concerning the negative (rarely the positive) impact they are said to have on their children. [The ongoing discussions about pregnant mothers getting the H1N1 vaccine comes to mind, as do discussions surrounding breastfeeding].
Liked the article.
I actually did wonder if being a full-time working dad would "injure" -- or at least cheat -- my kids, especially before they reached the teenage getouttahere stage. This led to me adjusting my work schedule (the power of privilege, I admit) to maximize as much as possible my time at home. It also meant that it was complete hands-on time for me when I hit the door after work, which I loved and which my kids and my working spouse appreciated.
It's crazy that everything from "waxy yellow build-up" to "the heartbreak of psoriasis" is blamed on mothers -- 100% of whom happen to be women.
My mom was a working mom and there is nothing wrong with me or my sister. Because my mother was so successful my sister and I were motivated to excel in school and challenge stereotypical gender roles. There is a difference between neglect and healthy space between people. It's about quality of time rather than quantity.